You are here

Case

COPE Members bring specific (anonymised) publication ethics issues to the COPE Forum for discussion and advice. The advice from the COPE Forum meetings is specific to the particular case under consideration and may not necessarily be applicable to similar cases either past or future. The advice is given by the Forum participants (COPE Council and COPE Members from across all regions and disciplines).

COPE Members may submit a case for consideration.

Filter by topic

Showing 1–20 of 107 results
  • Case
    On-going

    When Correction, Retraction and Expression of Concern could be considered?

    Recently, we received a review report from PubMedCentral for the indexing application of one of our journals. Reviewers pointed out several shortcomings of particular articles below: 1. Discussions that did not thoroughly address limitations, and conclusions that were over-stated and/or not supported by the results. 2. Methods that were not described clearly and in sufficient deta…
  • Case
    On-going

    Retracting a 'Just Accepted' article

    We are nearing the completion of an investigation into an alleged fraudulent special issue of one of our journals. Someone impersonated legitimate Special Issue editors and invited papers from legitimate authors in the community. We discovered this alleged fraud while reaching out to the people who were listed as the Special Issue editors only to find out from them that they had nothing to do w…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Handling undisclosed peer reviewer conflict

    Some authors from a company recommended a peer reviewer on submitting their manuscript, who was then asked to review the manuscript. This reviewer recommended acceptance without change. One other reviewer recommended major revision (a methodological reviewer not a content expert) and the third reviewer recommended rejection. The editor found it unusual for a review to recommend acceptance witho…
  • Case
    On-going

    Reviewer citation manipulation

    This is a general scenario which has been observed in increasing numbers at our journal. We are finding that some reviewers provide a referee’s report which include a request to cite a number of papers, which on closer inspection are all authored by the referee. We would like to hear whether Forum participants have any policies or procedures for reviewers who are clearly manipulating cit…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Complaint over protocol used in special issue

    We launched a Special Issue (SI) focusing on the application of a particular clinical protocol, with guest editors that have an extensive clinical history in applying this protocol. This specific protocol is currently used and promoted by a small subset of practitioners, with limited wider recognition. The SI concluded with a substantial number of published articles, including several case repo…
  • Case
    On-going

    Rescind a decision post-acceptance prior to publication

    A paper that has been accepted for publication in a journal has recently been found to be unsuitable for publication. The authors have been highlighted in other journals for disseminating misinformation regarding the treatment of COVID-19. An expression of concern has been issued on another article, similar to the one we are close to publishing, in another publisher's journal. We looked into th…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Inquiry concerning potential peer reviewer misconduct

    A journal received the recommendation of a peer reviewer which expressed doubts about the validity of some of the data in an article. The editor-in-chief got in touch directly with the author and mediated to have the data validated by an outside contributor. The authors responded by providing data validation by a colleague, who is now becoming a potential coauthor. The initial data were…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Ethical issues of responding to government agency request for information

    A journal published several articles, reviewed by reviewers recommended by the author, that were identified as suspect. After a thorough investigation, the journal determined that almost all of the peer review responses for these articles were fabricated - the result of identity misappropriation and fraud.   The journal was subsequently contacted by two government agencies of the country…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Critical comment and conflict of interest

    Journal A received an article by Dr X (Article 1) commenting on another author’s work (Dr. Y) which had been published in Journal A and another journal (Journal B) of a different publisher. Because the scientific arguments were involved, and because the articles being criticised had been cited many times in the literature, the Editors of Journal A rejected Dr X's request to publish the work as…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Should a journal disclose peer reviewer names?

    A journal received a manuscript in July concerning the conditions surrounding the ending of an individual’s contract of employment. Following peer review and revision, the manuscript was accepted and published in October of the same year. Two years later, the journal received a letter from a lawyer representing a client who was suing the former employer discussed in the article. The author of t…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Authors used pseudonyms on a published article

    A publisher has recently become aware that an article published in one of their journals two years ago uses pseudonyms instead of the real names of the two authors. Communication with the corresponding author has confirmed the use of pseudonyms. The corresponding author has informed the publisher that the authors used pseudonyms in order to obtain a fair review of the paper (the paper is in an…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Dispute over submitted comment and the right to be forgotten

    Some time after publishing a paper, a journal received a comment highlighting serious issues with the methods reported, and claiming that the conclusions could not be trusted. The comment was 13 pages long and rather technical in nature, so it was peer reviewed.    The journal contacted the authors to respond to the comment but they replied that they wished instead to completely rem…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Reviewer anonymity in post publication peer review

    A journal with an open peer review process (names and reports published alongside articles) accepted an article after assessment by three peer reviewers. Two reviewers were positive and the third reviewer raised some concerns about the methodology. A revised version of the manuscript was published alongside the three peer reviewer reports and the authors’ response   After publicatio…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    A systematic review on a country’s health problem written by non-native authors

    Journal A received a submission which focused on a systematic review/meta-analysis of a health problem in a specific country. It was written by four authors who do not live in that country. In addition, none of the authors seem to have any professional affiliation with any institution or researchers in that country. The systematic review/meta-analysis was based on published references and did n…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Duplicate publication in multicentre consortia

    Two closely related journals received a series of manuscripts each based on descriptions of a complex medical procedure by multicentre consortia. At least three separate consortia submitted three separate papers. Each consortium included centres which were shared between the three groups and likely have the same patients/procedures represented in different reports.  For example: …
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Author refuses to comply with editorial review prior to production and publication

    The Editor-in-Chief of a journal received a message from a corresponding author of a brief communication, stating that the proposed editorial edits were beyond typical formatting edits at this stage. They felt said many edits were not appropriate, would need further response and suggested holding this article (which had already been in process with the journal for over a year) for the next edit…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Misrepresentation of journal decision on social media

    An author submitted an invited paper to a journal and, after a double anonymous peer review, the decision on the paper was to request ‘major revision’. The author decided not to revise the paper, and therefore effectively withdrew the paper, based on disagreements with the reviewers. These disagreements were not discussed with the editor prior to withdrawing the paper. The editor replied to the…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Behaviour of researcher during peer review

    An anonymised manuscript was sent to a senior faculty member (researcher A) of a well-known institute for peer review. The faculty member was known to have pedigree in publication on the topic of the manuscript for many years. The manuscript was rejected with comments. Based on editorial opinion and other comments, the manuscript was rejected by the editor-in-chief. Six weeks after rejection, i…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Plagiarism and copyright of material without permission

    The presenters found an e-book where all of the 'chapters' comprised articles from different issues and volumes of their journal. These were used without the journal’s permission or any form of approval. The journal’s co-publisher neither gave permission nor was contacted. Also, no one contacted the authors of the articles involved for permission.    The journal is open access with…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Publication of correspondence relating to a paper currently online

    A journal published an article discussing alleged partnerships between a well-known soft drinks brand and a number of health organisations in one particular country. The article was fully peer-reviewed prior to acceptance and now sits online in the journal’s advance access section of the website. A month after it appeared online, the Editor-in-Chief started to receive several written calls for…

Pages